Download "A Science Conspiracy Network" by P.S.J. Schutte for FREE. Read/write reviews, email this book to a friend and more...

Leppad DISLIKES this book

This author is wrong and has no understanding of science and he does not even know what the scientific method is. I will tell you why as briefly as possible. Not only do I think he is wrong, but I think he is doing a disservice to people by deliberately misleading people and muddying the waters thus causing great harm to anyone looking for truth. Apart from the irrelevant diatribe that has no bearing on the subject, the author's main premise seems to be one of conspiracy by the scientific community to deceive the public. His main proof is his lack of understanding of basic scientific ideas. He states that the equation F = [(m1 * m2) / r^2}] * G clearly shows that the larger the mass, the larger the force is and the faster the mass should fall relative to a smaller mass. This seems to be true if you have a myopic view of the equation but it is wrong for precisely this reason: Let's simplify the equation so you can check this in your head. G is just the gravitational constant therefore can be completely ignored since no matter what the numbers are before it, it will not change the relative results at all. So let's just ignore the G, or call it 1 if you will. The radius (r) squared can be assumed to be the number 1 for the purposes of comparison and can also be completely ignored since anything divided by 1 = the thing itself. This simplifies the equation to F = mass1 * mass2. Clearly, this equation shows that the larger the mass, the greater the force. However, Force = mass * acceleration. Solving for acceleration, the equation becomes acceleration = force divided by mass. Using this equation you can see that no matter how large the mass and hence the force, the acceleration is exactly the same for any object no matter what their relative masses. So the author is completely wrong when he wants to claim that the equation F = (m1m2/r^2) *G proves that a truck falls faster than a ballerina falls faster than a frog. If the acceleration is the same, the velocity, or rate of fall is exactly the same for all objects. Contrary to what the author claims, the truck, the dancer, and the frog will all hit the ground at the same time (in a vacuum). I did not read the whole book because it rambles off topic and often goes on irrelevant tangents making it extremely difficult to find a common thread or theme of any kind, but I plan to finish it just to see how it goes. This author needs to get an education, exercise critical thinking skills on his own stuff, and not think he is smarter than the entire scientific community.

Linda Corpe Bibb DISLIKES this book

Unfortunately it's still as rambling as the previous explanation and still as impossible to follow.

G. D. DISLIKES this book

ridiculous. hidden fundamentalist christian agenda?

John Egan DISLIKES this book

Wanted to check science books - NOT anti science

Dualsingularity DISLIKES this book

‎"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" Isaac Asimov

Vern11ricia DISLIKES this book

Science is not black and white. This is an extremest view of personal opinion with little substance. Proof of this is that most great scientist were or are very religious people who strove for understanding of complex subjects which many of us do not care to understand.

Larz Law DISLIKES this book

This book is in concise and displays no knowledge about what is being argued. The Books first page is grossly wrong and trying to say gravity is wrong is the worst way to start a book like this. I am as of yet undecided as to my view of the world and what forces are at play (divine or other wise)